how did giri beat naka today?
What makes a GM stronger than an IM?
IM > expert?
1800 > 1300?
Why did I lose to my opponent today when I was up a pawn and he played like garbage the first half of the game?
the answer to every question above is tactics.
Numbers have significance.
I am not trying to belittle you or discourage you. I want to make that clear please do not get offended at what I am about to say.
You are simply wrong.
I will explain why. The numbers only judge preformance/results of games played it does not judge a players over all ability.
I will give you an example. I have never played in a Fide Tournement over the board if I was to go to a Fide tournement my ranking would probably be novice which is probably around 1200. Does that mean my playing strength or ability is 1200? No it does not
If on any given day 1 1300 knows what he is doing in a specific line. He can tear apart any 1800 player. I have seen it happen to me personally. I have also done it to higher players they may know more than me. They might of had more experince than me but on that given day and on that given line I knew more than them and tore them apart.
Don't ever let a number, statistic, or a ranking diminish your potential ability. You are powerful beyond measure. You are divine. You may play a game of chess and do everything right and your opponent may do everything wrong.
This reminds me of a movie that I watched long ago by the name of "Little Giants" People said they had no chance no hope and do you know what the coach said? He said you may lose 99 games out of 100 but 1 time 1 time you will win. You may not be the strongest, You may not be the fastest, you may not the be the smartest, you may not even be the best chess player, but 1 time 1 time you will win. They will eat your dust.
Numbers, Stastics, Rankings they have significance in measuring alot of things but what they can not measure is your desire to succeed. Your passion for excellence. Your drive to push forward in a lost position. An becuase they can never measure these things they will never serve as a correct answer.
If I am wrong, according to you, rankings do not have any significance. But, my statement that numbers (rankings) have significance is not wrong, unless you interpret the question as players, in which case ratings do not have significance, and no response is suitable to this question, which I am not sure you agree with. Rankings are not determiners, but possible indicators.
how did giri beat naka today?
What makes a GM stronger than an IM?
IM > expert?
1800 > 1300?
Why did I lose to my opponent today when I was up a pawn and he played like garbage the first half of the game?
the answer to every question above is tactics.
Just because your opponent was a better tactical player than you are does not mean that 1800's are better than 1300's tactically.
how did giri beat naka today?
What makes a GM stronger than an IM?
IM > expert?
1800 > 1300?
Why did I lose to my opponent today when I was up a pawn and he played like garbage the first half of the game?
the answer to every question above is tactics.
Pattern recognition.
A GM knows over 2000 patterns
A master knows 2000 patterns
And so on down the line.
Numbers have significance.
I am not trying to belittle you or discourage you. I want to make that clear please do not get offended at what I am about to say.
You are simply wrong.
I will explain why. The numbers only judge preformance/results of games played it does not judge a players over all ability.
I will give you an example. I have never played in a Fide Tournement over the board if I was to go to a Fide tournement my ranking would probably be novice which is probably around 1200. Does that mean my playing strength or ability is 1200? No it does not
If on any given day 1 1300 knows what he is doing in a specific line. He can tear apart any 1800 player. I have seen it happen to me personally. I have also done it to higher players they may know more than me. They might of had more experince than me but on that given day and on that given line I knew more than them and tore them apart.
Don't ever let a number, statistic, or a ranking diminish your potential ability. You are powerful beyond measure. You are divine. You may play a game of chess and do everything right and your opponent may do everything wrong.
This reminds me of a movie that I watched long ago by the name of "Little Giants" People said they had no chance no hope and do you know what the coach said? He said you may lose 99 games out of 100 but 1 time 1 time you will win. You may not be the strongest, You may not be the fastest, you may not the be the smartest, you may not even be the best chess player, but 1 time 1 time you will win. They will eat your dust.
Numbers, Stastics, Rankings they have significance in measuring alot of things but what they can not measure is your desire to succeed. Your passion for excellence. Your drive to push forward in a lost position. An becuase they can never measure these things they will never serve as a correct answer.
If I am wrong, according to you, rankings do not have any significance. But, my statement that numbers (rankings) have significance is not wrong, unless you interpret the question as players, in which case ratings do not have significance, and no response is suitable to this question, which I am not sure you agree with. Rankings are not determiners, but possible indicators.
I would argue that ratings do have significance: Even if you do not play as exact as your rating, it gives an idea of how strong you are.
how did giri beat naka today?
What makes a GM stronger than an IM?
IM > expert?
1800 > 1300?
Why did I lose to my opponent today when I was up a pawn and he played like garbage the first half of the game?
the answer to every question above is tactics.
Pattern recognition.
A GM knows over 2000 patterns
A master knows 2000 patterns
And so on down the line.
so according to you masters are just as good as grandmasters?
how did giri beat naka today?
What makes a GM stronger than an IM?
IM > expert?
1800 > 1300?
Why did I lose to my opponent today when I was up a pawn and he played like garbage the first half of the game?
the answer to every question above is tactics.
Pattern recognition.
A GM knows over 2000 patterns
A master knows 2000 patterns
And so on down the line.
so according to you masters are just as good as grandmasters?
Obviously not...I dont remember the number of patterns a GM knows, but i know its way over 2000. I want to say its something like 10,000?
Make it 100,000 for GMs
That may very well be it, I didnt remember how many zeros were before the 1 :-)
Yeah, IIRC masters was said to be 10,000
Make it 100,000 for GMs
That may very well be it, I didnt remember how many zeros were before the 1 :-)
There were zero zeroes before the 1.
how did giri beat naka today?
What makes a GM stronger than an IM?
IM > expert?
1800 > 1300?
Why did I lose to my opponent today when I was up a pawn and he played like garbage the first half of the game?
the answer to every question above is tactics.
Pattern recognition.
A GM knows over 2000 patterns
A master knows 2000 patterns
And so on down the line.
so according to you masters are just as good as grandmasters?
Obviously not...I dont remember the number of patterns a GM knows, but i know its way over 2000. I want to say its something like 10,000?
Oh! I thought you meant that a GM knows 2000 patterns and that an FM knows 2000 patterns
Make it 100,000 for GMs
That may very well be it, I didnt remember how many zeros were before the 1 :-)
There were zero zeroes before the 1.
Thank You Mr. Nit Pick :-)
Determinism1 is 1200 in 1 minute games.
You played a 10 minute game.
And in any case, I think (at least I hope) questions in the forum imply OTB ratings.
when a 1200 beats a 1800 they saw a tactic the 1800 didnt, same the other way around.
Determinism1 is 1200 in 1 minute games.
You played a 10 minute game.
And in any case, I think (at least I hope) questions in the forum imply OTB ratings.
Dterminism1 is ranked 1291 in 1 min games in blitz he is unrated which is 1200 thats what chess.com starts you at
Ok, so also I assume established ratings for these kinds of questions.
While your logic is correct, my experience in many hundreds of tournament games is that players with significantly lower ratings than mine were always tactically much weaker than me.
The Masters I know tend to emphasize that tactics is pretty well everything below about 1800 CFC.
I (1422fide)was in winning advantage against a 1900 fide player on thursday, but failed in midgametactics, lost pressure and lost the game. The bystanders did see what I didnt in move 24. So the tactical skills made a difference.
The "main difference" is that the 1800 is vastly better and will win the vast majority of the games. Both players have appalling weaknesses in their game.
I don't think that that's a stupid question at all. I realize I'm coming to the discussion belatedly, but as an 1800 strength player who had played against a few 1400-1500 rated opponents I've noticed that the plans aren't usually very deep, positional understanding is not so well developed yet, missing some basic tactical ideas. The lower rated player do have their moments, though. I've had some tough battles with some. If I fail to play accurately I can get into some horrible positions. Good question.
No one has said 500 points for 12 posts!
The problem is every1 who says that is not correct becuase they are not reading the heading correctly
what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?Its asking whats the difference between a 1300 player vs. 1800 players, not what is the difference between a 1300 ranking vs. 1800 ranking.
1300 and 1800 are just rankings to try and measure preformance in games. However, that only skimms the surface of what the real differences of the players are.
Which goes back to the answer I previously stated the difference generally involves a individuals understanding.
Which understanding is a broad term I use becuase it encompasses a wild range of situations in chess which makes it fitting to be a broad term
Which I can give some examples of different Understandings:
End game skills
Middle game skills
Opening knowledge
Pawn structure
Specific line's theory's
Opening theory's
Idea's in positions
Coming up with idea's
Being aware of opponents idea's
Mating patterns
Tactical patterns
Positional Understanding
These are just a few the list can go further becuase to truly understand one must seek to improve in all aspects of chess.
Which is why generally the player who is higher ranked usually has better Understanding over all. That does not mean he can't lose it just means over all his Understanding is much better.
As in the games I posted just now- The people were n rated 1300- some were lower and some were higher. But they played like 1300.